Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 92
Like Tree108Likes
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by CGK View Post
    Because of Sarbanes–Oxley and similar changes, it would be straight forward criminal conduct - you simply cannot mislead the markets by saying you are discontinuing a product line when really you are trying to run a crafty marketing scheme.

    Anyone one here see Léo Apotheker risking jail time, the sack and complete and utter disgrace for such a whacked out scheme?
    The thread should of have ended right here.

    CGK is completely right. Sarbanes-Oxley disclosure is the answer to all these conspiracy marketing theories. Those who don't invest in the market don't understand it so it is hard to convey it to many of these posters.

    The CEO of a large corporation made critical disclosures regarding the direction of the company. The Firesale is a direct result of those comments. Anything different from that would mean jail time. That is all there is to it. There is simply no going back at this point in time.

    There is no "Ooops, were sorry. The firesale pricing and newly grown audience of webOS has made us re-consider." Any comments even close to that would inflict a class action lawsuit. The shareholders have already answered to LEO with the big drop in valuation.



    I know. I've invested in stocks where CEOs have gone to jail for improper disclosure. I've been attached a few class-action lawsuit.

    HP is a big freaking company, they (as in the board and all the execs) will not risk being delisted by the SEC.
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by neller2000 View Post
    There's a slight problem to you theory that a new baseline price has been set for all tablets now, excluding the iPad naturally. The manufacturers of for instance Google tablets can not, will not and shouldn't price their tablets at that low a price.

    First of all, the profit off these tablets, IF they sell, would be too small for any company to even bother creating them in the first place. It doesn't matter that they can. They won't. Ever.

    I found out yesterday that the lovely large cheeseburger you're selling currently for $5 actually only cost you 75 cents to make. I feel it's entirely fair you sell it to me for $1. No you say? Why is that? Oh right, you're not a moron, that's why.

    Even the crappiest tablets out there, which run horribly, with inferior tech, inferior screens, inferior performance and on and on are priced at about $250. You can theorize and use wishful thinking all you like but there's not a snowballs chance in hell it will ever happen. Outside a firesale if someone is going out of the business of course.
    this...this...this.
  3. #63  
    So Sarbanes-Oxley means you can't go back on a decision you've made? So Apple can never make servers again or Steve Jobs or Tim Cook will go to prison? I somehow find that hard to believe.
    If some company makes a management decision and then finds out it was a bad one (because they were grossly underestimating demand) they can't undo it? Just doesn't seem right to me.

    But I really have no idea about American law.
    made likes this.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by GodShapedHole View Post
    So Sarbanes-Oxley means you can't go back on a decision you've made? So Apple can never make servers again or Steve Jobs or Tim Cook will go to prison? I somehow find that hard to believe.
    I'm not sure its so much a change in decision as it is consciously making patently false statements to investors. As much as I would like to see this as a genius secret marketing ploy by HP, for many of the previously cited reasons, this scenario is just too outlandish and far-fetched to be plausible.

    Would YOU pay 14 billion dollars to advertise for the OS of a company you bought for 1.2 billion? The financial math just doesn't make sense.
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by GodShapedHole View Post
    So Sarbanes-Oxley means you can't go back on a decision you've made? So Apple can never make servers again or Steve Jobs or Tim Cook will go to prison? I somehow find that hard to believe.
    If some company makes a management decision and then finds out it was a bad one (because they were grossly underestimating demand) they can't undo it? Just doesn't seem right to me.

    But I really have no idea about American law.
    Apple never made those decision that would have far reaching impact on the company in a conference call to investors.

    A management decision is one thing. Disclosing it to investors as the direction is something completely different.

    Quitting a certain product is not the same as quitting a profit making division (PSCG) and changing the company's focus to be a SAP/IBM service company.

    And the 14 billion lost in valuation.
    sinsin07 likes this.
  6. cgk
    cgk is offline
    cgk's Avatar
    Posts
    3,868 Posts
    Global Posts
    9,556 Global Posts
    #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by GodShapedHole View Post
    So Sarbanes-Oxley means you can't go back on a decision you've made? So Apple can never make servers again or Steve Jobs or Tim Cook will go to prison? I somehow find that hard to believe.
    If some company makes a management decision and then finds out it was a bad one (because they were grossly underestimating demand) they can't undo it? Just doesn't seem right to me.

    But I really have no idea about American law.
    Sure they can decide to make phones or tablets again, but it is a question of timescale. If in two years, they decide to have another go with WebOS, then that would not be a problem. However if they said next week, "we'll continue making touchpad with webOS" - the lawsuits and criminal investigations would start straight away. Leo would look a complete chump and would be finished.
  7. #67  
    I personally believe it was wrong from the jump. ie Ol leo had no intention to ever go through with WebOS in the first place. The prior board, CEO had, his hands were tied. This whole fire sale thing was just to give him and HP an excuse to get out of PC/Tablet manufacturing. Saying that, HP lost one hell of a lot of money doing it.
    As to manufacturing costs of said tablets, a number of about 250ish has been kicked around as real cost to build said tablets.This is based on what? Market prices for a given set of speced hardware? Remember one little thing, HP was/is the largest manufacturer of PCs in the world. If you were one of their plants, and HP approached with, we are gonna be the IPad killers, we are gonna build millions and millions of these things, just like all those great HP comps and laptops. We must have it built for this price. Based on their track record, Id bet that these plants came in far under the magic 250ish mark.
    As to a marketing ploy, actually its a damn fine idea, as to Leo and crew risking jail time, well, was anyone here actually in that conference call? Do we know what was said? All we know is what was reported on... what was released to the "public". Not saying they didn't say what CGK is stating, just saying we have no idea what was said behind closed doors.
    The whole idea of it being a marketing ploy, well, as much as its a damn fine idea, I am in marketing, this flies in the face of everything Leo.
    So, one I do believe the hit HP is taking on the actual cost of these units is far less than most think, two, the idea that Leo never had any intention to follow through is highly likely. Three, unless someone here was part of that conference call, and can state that this was actually said, its all by guess and by golly as to what the call was about.
    Its not like CEO's, of (name any damn corp you want) hasn't twisted bent lied etc etc before, and frankly will happen again.
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  8. #68  
    I'm sorry, any notion of "genius" or this firesale being some conspiracy theory and that this is some masterplan by HP is simply preposterous and wishful thinking, plus, you're giving apothekar too much credit. I'm not saying this to the OP but more in general.

    All I know is that my HP stocks were over $35 a few weeks ago and now less than $25. If they scrapped the entire PSG to keep shareholders happy, they failed miserably because this one certainly ain't.
    sinsin07 likes this.
  9. made's Avatar
    Posts
    4 Posts
    #69  
    Before my touch - at $149 I bought a Pandigital. As all I need is email, web browsing and downloaded patterns for crochet and cross stich I love my pandigital. Now I lodge them both, cause the webOS is really something.

    Oh! And I got both for less than $210.
  10. #70  
    All this is very interesting to me because I keep seeing 'back due to popular demand' things everywhere - and if HP decided to make new hardware (not that I think that's likely, mind you) that would be totally due to popular demand.

    And y'all are quite sure you're not painting black in black because it's webOS and that's what you've been doing for two years now? Make any situation look infinitely worse than it really is in order to persuade people who are otherwise happy with their platform to switch to yours?

    BTW, they didn't say they ARE killing webOS, or that they ARE selling the PSG. They said that they're "continuing to explore all options" for webOS, and that they are looking to POSSIBLY spin off the PSG.
    So they can't even decide not to do something they originally only said they MIGHT do?

    Maybe we should sue Apple under Sarbanes-Oxley because they said in a huge 2007 announcement that locally installed apps are DOA because web apps with online access are the way to go, and just a year later they completely reversed that decision. Obviously only done to throw off the competition.
  11. cgk
    cgk is offline
    cgk's Avatar
    Posts
    3,868 Posts
    Global Posts
    9,556 Global Posts
    #71  
    Maybe we should sue Apple under Sarbanes-Oxley because they said in a huge 2007 announcement that locally installed apps are DOA because web apps with online access are the way to go, and just a year later they completely reversed that decision. Obviously only done to throw off the competition.
    I'm not sure what part of "disclosure to the market" you are struggling with?

    You have already said that you don't know what SOX is and that you don't understand US corporate legislation, so where can this conversation go?

    What fruitful discussion can come when one side doesn't even understand the subject or the context?
    TechFan#WN and sinsin07 like this.
  12. #72  
    Lol, so you can't explain it and therefore don't want to talk about it... but that's fine. I now did some research and found out that none of this even touches on Sarbanes-Oxley since it's essentially a bylaw preventing companies to lie about their finances in reports. Nowhere does it say anything about preventing changes in strategic plans, much less ones presented as POSSIBILITIES FOR THE FUTURE.

    'HP told their stockholders they MIGHT do something so now they MUST'. Funny. Was kinda unlikely such a law would exist in America of all places, but nice try.
  13. cgk
    cgk is offline
    cgk's Avatar
    Posts
    3,868 Posts
    Global Posts
    9,556 Global Posts
    #73  
    Lol, so you can't explain it and therefore don't want to talk about it... but that's fine.
    Well no, it's more that it's a bank holiday weekend and I don't want to work for nothing. Seriously, this is forum is a bit of procrastination for me, I'm not here to fill in gaps in your education for free.

    I bid you good day (in other words, talk to yourself).
    TechFan#WN and sinsin07 like this.
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by CGK View Post
    Well no, it's more that it's a bank holiday weekend and I don't want to work for nothing. Seriously, this is forum is a bit of procrastination for me, I'm not here to fill in gaps in your education for free.

    I bid you good day (in other words, talk to yourself).
    Nah, there's enough people here that people can talk to who don't get all offended and hissy and pretend like posting here is hard work when people don't immediately agree with you. I'll just talk to them instead of you from here on in.
  15. #75  
    I joined this (rather than lurk as I have been for months now) just to say that this post was an excellent read. I do think CGK is a bit off in his analysis on what HP can and can not do based on an earnings call but he is correct in many ways.

    Anyway. Great read. Let's keep the faith.
  16. #76  
    As much as I'm liking the touchpad I got, Apple still got them beat and probably won't be phased by this. The touchpad and ipad 2 hardware are almost similar, but Apple knows how to optimized their software unlike HP/Palm. With all the that power in the touchpad, I was kind of appalled how sluggish the touchpad was. I had to install all kinds of patches and overclock to get a decent experience with webos which is sad. It should of been snappy right ouf of the box. Webos still have a good chance to succeed if HP ups their game and start pumping out updates to their software to improve and add functionality. There are still a lot of things missing besides the apps and games.
  17. #77  
    Personally, I'd love to see the OP's theory be true, but sadly it's not happening. At first I wondered why HP just didn't incrementally drop prices to $300 to see how well they moved, but then came to the realization that they've done this because they simply WANT OUT. There may be some tangential benefit in creating this buzz though, and THAT is the genius of this decision...rapid adoption and at least temporary mindshare in the buying public could sweeten the deal for potential new WebOS suitors and potentially drive more developers to write/convert apps to the OS, both of which are needed for our beloved OS to survive long-term.

    Personally, I think the PSG should do the following:

    1. Do not open-source WebOS. Prevent fragmentation. Allow for some minor manufacturer-specific modifications, but nothing that would be drastic.
    2. Offer WebOS to device manufacturers at no cost. With Google's purchase of Motorola, all of the other manufacturers might be more apt to listen.
    3. Extend the Palm patents to any manufacturers who adopt WebOS, perhaps for a nominal fee. With Apple's recent penchant for suing EVERYBODY, some degree of legal armor could be very enticing.
    4. HP provide subsidies for each device manufactured. Of course the PSG would need to determine how much they might be able to recoup thru app sales, etc, but even $25 per phone or $50-100 for each tablet could DRASTICALLY reduce the price of devices at the consumer level, thereby spurring adoption.
    5. Consider suing Apple using the Palm patents. Demand a cut from all Apple devices sold and then use the funds to further build out WebOS infrastructure. I know, suing is lowbrow and unpopular in the device space, but heck...Apple is the biggest company in America and they have no qualms about doing it...

    Anyway...that's my pie-in-the-sky idea...
  18.    #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by CGK View Post
    I'm not sure what part of "disclosure to the market" you are struggling with?
    Dude - what part of ILLEGAL STUFF HAPPENS behind closed doors don't you understand?

    First off, even if it is illegal, stuff like that happens all the time. A lot of rich people risk jail time. Are you a child that you think that rich people don't take risks of jail time? Look at the Bernie Madoff, look at Enron, look at Worldcom. This stuff happens.

    Secondly, a lawsuit would require EVIDENCE. If this decision was made by the FEW top dogs, HP wouldn't come out and say..."Oh we were simply lying out butts off to trick investors, the media, and consumers". They'd spin it with "due to increased market demand...". There is no denying that there is increased demand. They can certainly come up with figures and rationale behind backtracking on their plans; regardless of the period of time that elapsed.

    And what would the evidence be? I'm fairly certain that if a decision was made it was over dinner talks, in board rooms, etc. They wouldn't be dumb enough to have these types of conversations over the phone or via email. So besides the fact of suspicion, there'd be the extra burden of proving that this happened, which is pretty hard if it was a split second decision as it appears to have been.

    Third, the investors HATE the new direction for the company. So would backtracking on an idea that the investors hate really be that fishy?? Of course not; the investors would most certainly approve of the backtracking at this point and this would be more rationale for doing such.
  19. #80  
    I guess it would be more criminal to waste a $1.2B investment than taking back what they "disclosed" eh?

    Markets shmarkets.

    Looking forward to getting my own fire sale TouchPad soon.
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions